The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows, but sections like 'How It Works', the Step 3.5 acting-verification prose, the iterative-loop meta, and the RFC breadcrumb footer add length that could be tightened. It is not score 1 (no padded beginner explanations like 'a PDF is a file format') and not score 3 (some passages restate or over-explain rather than earning every token).

It gives concrete commands (`ooo qa`, `tool discovery query: "+ouroboros qa"`), a fully specified MCP tool call with named arguments, a complete verdict output template, and a worked end-to-end example. It is not score 2 (the guidance is specific and copy-paste ready, not pseudocode) and clearly meets the score-3 'executable commands + specific examples' anchor for an instruction skill.

The process is clearly sequenced (Step 0 mode selection, QA Steps 1-5 with sub-step 3.5), includes explicit validation (acting-verification: run, observe real effects, probe adversarial classes, capture evidence) and feedback loops (iterative QA loop until pass/fail, re-run after revise). It is not score 2 (checkpoints are explicit, not implicit) and matches the score-3 anchor with validation steps and error-recovery loops.

The body is organized into clear navigable sections (Usage, How It Works, Instructions, Fallback, Example) and its single external reference (`<project-root>/src/ouroboros/agents/qa-judge.md`) is one level deep and clearly signaled; no nested 2+-level reference chains exist. It is not score 2 (organization is clean and the reference is well signaled, with no inline content that obviously belongs in a separate file) and not below 3.

The phrase 'QA verdict' names a concrete output action and 'any artifact type' scopes the domain, but only one action is named rather than a comprehensive list of specific concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor 'Processes PDF files and extracts content'. It is not score 1 (it is not abstract like 'Helps with documents') nor score 3 (no multiple specific actions such as 'parse, score, render verdict, suggest fixes').

It states what the skill does ('QA verdict for any artifact type') but has no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2. It is not score 1 (the 'what' is present) and not score 3 (the 'when' is entirely missing rather than explicit).

The description 'General-purpose QA verdict for any artifact type' contains no natural user-facing trigger keywords; the natural terms ('ooo qa', 'qa check', 'quality check') appear only in the body, not the description. It is not score 2 because not even 'some relevant keywords' are present in the description itself.

'QA verdict' gives it a recognizable niche, but 'General-purpose ... any artifact type' is broad and could overlap with other evaluation/QA skills. It is not score 1 (it is more specific than 'Helps with code and documents') and not score 3 (the broad scope raises conflict risk rather than carving a distinct trigger niche).